STOP SPAM NOW! Must Read - All newsgroup users need to rebe

[Ben Pope]

Roger Hamlett wrote:

The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was
allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place, before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Ben Pope]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

It is entirely do-able to destroy all foreign contact with any ISP
which will not fall into line and stop spam eminating from its domain.
Assembling and examining all packets before they are resent into the
USA
at our borders lately is trivial.

Further it is even easier to send UNBELIEVABLE volumes of our own
punishment SPAM to any foreign ISP and also stop cooperating with any
nation that won't stop it, and cut off telecom and trade to and
from them.

You don't have to clog the courts with this shit or anything like
Opt-In requires, and it ends it by govt mandating that for all ports
of entry for telephonic data into the USA.

For the few spammers that try it in the USA, make it punishable by
the death penalty, just as we should ALL virus writers/disseminators.

This would stop all this bullshit. We don't have to listen to people
cutting in on our telephone conversations, so why should we have to
receive ANY kind of this telephonic terrorism!????!!

Opt-In is fine for junk snail-mail, but punish the perp with death.
-Steve

Thats sarcasm, right?

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was
allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place, before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

In Arizona you can carry a gun on your person if it's contained in a
visible holster.

In Arizona you can carry a concealed weapon if you pass an examination
for such a permit.

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Ben Pope]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it
was allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place,
before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that
seems to have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Possible, but Roger and I are referring to the UK so I'm not sure who that
comment was directed at.

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

Yep, I knew that you can legally own a gun if you have a license. I don't
know much about the differences in the laws between states but thats the
general idea, no?

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was
allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place, before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

In Arizona you can carry a gun on your person if it's contained in a
visible holster.

In Arizona you can carry a concealed weapon if you pass an examination
for such a permit.

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

...Jim Thompson
---------------

You sure you want that, Jim? Then we'd be the armed majority!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Ben Pope wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
It is entirely do-able to destroy all foreign contact with any ISP
which will not fall into line and stop spam eminating from its domain.
Assembling and examining all packets before they are resent into the
USA
at our borders lately is trivial.

Further it is even easier to send UNBELIEVABLE volumes of our own
punishment SPAM to any foreign ISP and also stop cooperating with any
nation that won't stop it, and cut off telecom and trade to and
from them.

You don't have to clog the courts with this shit or anything like
Opt-In requires, and it ends it by govt mandating that for all ports
of entry for telephonic data into the USA.

For the few spammers that try it in the USA, make it punishable by
the death penalty, just as we should ALL virus writers/disseminators.

This would stop all this bullshit. We don't have to listen to people
cutting in on our telephone conversations, so why should we have to
receive ANY kind of this telephonic terrorism!????!!

Opt-In is fine for junk snail-mail, but punish the perp with death.
-Steve

Thats sarcasm, right?
Ben
------------------

Not in the least.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Ben Pope]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Ben Pope wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
It is entirely do-able to destroy all foreign contact with any ISP
which will not fall into line and stop spam eminating from its
domain. Assembling and examining all packets before they are resent
into the USA
at our borders lately is trivial.

Further it is even easier to send UNBELIEVABLE volumes of our own
punishment SPAM to any foreign ISP and also stop cooperating with
any nation that won't stop it, and cut off telecom and trade to and
from them.

You don't have to clog the courts with this shit or anything like
Opt-In requires, and it ends it by govt mandating that for all ports
of entry for telephonic data into the USA.

For the few spammers that try it in the USA, make it punishable by
the death penalty, just as we should ALL virus
writers/disseminators.

This would stop all this bullshit. We don't have to listen to people
cutting in on our telephone conversations, so why should we have to
receive ANY kind of this telephonic terrorism!????!!

Opt-In is fine for junk snail-mail, but punish the perp with death.
-Steve

Thats sarcasm, right?
Ben
------------------
Not in the least.

So you think that cutting all communications and trade to countries with
laws that are less strict then the new laws which you suggest, should be
ceased.

Then you should show the way forward (the termination of SPAM) by SPAMing
external ISPs.

And you should kill all internal SPAMers.

And you think that would be a resounding success?

I presume you are talking without consideration of anything external to
SPAM, i.e., the SPAM problem in isolation, and that given your way you would
not dream of actually implementing this with those other consideration taken
into account, right?

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Ben Pope]

Ben Pope wrote:

So you think that cutting all communications and trade to countries
with laws that are less strict then the new laws which you suggest,
should be ceased.

I should have re-read ALL of that paragraph

Cease communication and trade with the other (non-complient) countries.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Paul E Larson]

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote in
news:msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com:

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Given the rant below you must be a foreigner! New York state, except in New
York City, while not as liberal as Arizona in its handgun laws it is legal
to own a handgun with the same or similar provisos set by Arizona.

as one example -
http://www.clintoncountygov.com/Departments/CC/CCPisPer.htm

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

four words - start wearing a hat!

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:18:59 GMT, Paul E Larson
<whistler@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote in
news:msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com:



I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.


Given the rant below you must be a foreigner! New York state, except in New
York City, while not as liberal as Arizona in its handgun laws it is legal
to own a handgun with the same or similar provisos set by Arizona.

[snip]

My apologies, I thought the whole state was f'd up ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com>, Jim-
T@golana-will-get-you.com says...

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was
allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place, before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

The crazy Brady Bill does *not* require registration. It only
requires a background check at the time of purchase, if the.
purchase is from a dealer who has a Federal Firearms License. It
is not in any way a "permit", nor is it required for private
sales. I legally own several handguns and can legally carry
concealed at any time (with a few restrictions). No license is
required, no registration, nothing. As you say, it's up to the
individual states.

BTW, Vermont is on the list of "those few states dominated by
socialists" (Evidence: Howie Dean, Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy, and
Jumpin' Jism Jim Jeffords). The folks are also rather adamant
about their firearms, so the socialists have let the locals play,
at least for now.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

With a bigger armed mob with tin stars? ;-)

In Arizona you can carry a gun on your person if it's contained in a
visible holster.

Can do that, or concealed. I tend to carry them in a duffel bag
in their boxes when I go to the range.

In Arizona you can carry a concealed weapon if you pass an examination
for such a permit.

Permit? Why? Don't tell me you live in one of them commie
states, Jim. ;-)

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

I guess we're just too nice here in Vermont. The socialists
snuck in while the locals were hibernating.

--
Keith

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <53b6mvkfs95247qghjbqddf8n3fdjjupee@4ax.com>,
donald@pearce.uk.com mentioned...

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:12:09 -0500, Nick Funk
nfunk@NOSPAM.rtconline.com> wrote:


Please read.

Sorry about this off topic post. But anyone who has every posted to a
news group knows to well that they open themselves up to a flood of spam.

Since the recent National "Do-Not-Call" registry to stop telephone
solicitation, many telemarketers have found SPAM as another method of
solicitations to harass the public. In fact spam is less costly than
mass mailings, telephone banks of minimum wage employees and can be
implemented very easily from practically anywhere.

This problem will only worsen over time!

Why has our Congress ignored the spam issue? Could this be due to
political pressures from merchandiser's industry, from PAC committees,
trade associations, and possibly political funding from these groups.

I propose that ALL SPAM email you recieve is forwarded to your Senator
and Congressman.

Attached are two links to email addresses of our Senators and Congressman.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html

Please pass the message on!

Not quite sure what to do here. Do I choose the one closest to England
or what?

:0)

I just wish your British compatriot, Steve Linford, had the same
attitude, and would stop trying to tell us Merkins how to run our own
affairs.

BTW, WTF do you suppose a congressman can do about it?

Not any more nor any less than has been done so far. Not much harm in
trying. But from what I've read, the congresscritters get tons of
spam already.

Given enough time, the spam problem will take care of itself. Email
is already well on its way to becoming useless, and it's likely that
it will be replaced by something else like IM or a web based system.
Only Time will tell.

Here in California, where the spam laws were passed and went into
effect on Jan 1, 1999, nearly nothing has been done in the last 4 +
years to enforce the laws. Same with most other states. Given that,
what more could you expect from a federal law? Even a Linford-style
opt-in only law.

The FTC has said that 2/3 of all spams are fraudulwent or deceptive,
but the only prosecutions they've done to spammers involved big time
fraud, like selling pyramid schemes, and the spamming was only
incidental to their investigation.

Do I sound a bit pessimistic? No, just realistic. :-(
Just tellin' it like it is...

d

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <OQG8b.4064$3Y2.226@news2.central.cox.net>, jjith@cox.net
mentioned...

REDMOND, Wash, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- A Redmond, Wash., man has won a record
$250,000 judgment against two Ohioans who flooded his e-mail box with 58,000
pieces of spam.

The Seattle-Post Intelligencer said Nigel Featherston spent $10,000 to hire
an attorney and a private investigator in his quest against Dayton, Ohio,
residents Linda Lightfoot and Charles Childs and their varied corporate
personas: Universal Direct, Mega Direct, Mega Success and Ultra Trim 2002.

The Washington state law, which was passed in 1998, fines spammers $500 for
each unsolicited e-mail they send. That means the Ohio couple could have
been held liable for $29 million.

But Featherston, a former Microsoft programmer, told the Post-Intelligencer
he knew collecting that amount would be too difficult.

I believe Featherston has done what should be done, i.e. make life
miserable for the SOB who Joe Jobbed him. But the guy I worked for
told me that this kind of thing was "throwing good money after bad".
Featherston will probably never see _any_ of the money owed him, and
he's out ten grand out of his own pocket. So that doesn't make
economic sense to a business. There's no ROI. In other words, it's a
lose-lose situation - Defendent loses and so does the Plaintiff.

People have talked about taking away the monetary incentive to
spamming by charging a penny an email. Well, suing spammers is taking
away their monetary incentive, but it just isn't effective enough.

What we need are some volunteer lawyers who would take these kinds of
cases pro bono, so that the plaintiffs would not have to front so much
money. Fat chance that'll happen. :-/

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Richard Henry]

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ce87de9e334eca98a683@enews.newsguy.com...

In article <msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com>, Jim-
T@golana-will-get-you.com says...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was
allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place, before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that
seems to
have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

The crazy Brady Bill does *not* require registration. It only
requires a background check at the time of purchase, if the.
purchase is from a dealer who has a Federal Firearms License. It
is not in any way a "permit", nor is it required for private
sales. I legally own several handguns and can legally carry
concealed at any time (with a few restrictions). No license is
required, no registration, nothing. As you say, it's up to the
individual states.

BTW, Vermont is on the list of "those few states dominated by
socialists" (Evidence: Howie Dean, Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy, and
Jumpin' Jism Jim Jeffords). The folks are also rather adamant
about their firearms, so the socialists have let the locals play,
at least for now.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

With a bigger armed mob with tin stars? ;-)

In Arizona you can carry a gun on your person if it's contained in a
visible holster.

Can do that, or concealed. I tend to carry them in a duffel bag
in their boxes when I go to the range.

In Arizona you can carry a concealed weapon if you pass an examination
for such a permit.

Permit? Why? Don't tell me you live in one of them commie
states, Jim. ;-)

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

I guess we're just too nice here in Vermont. The socialists
snuck in while the locals were hibernating.

I grew up in Vermont in the Republican days (Eben: Say, Zeb, the results
show 2 Democrat votes this year in the town election. Zeb: That sumbitch
musta voted twice!).

We knew the socialists were coming in when the state deemed the school
lunchrooms unsanitary and made the town of my father's birth stop dumping
their sewage in the trout stream. Old-timers believe the decline started in
1927, when a big flood wiped out most of the roads in the state and there
was suddenly a reason for state-wide tax-and-spend programs. Then in the
60's the Supreme Court's one-man-one-vote rule knocked most of the
small-town reps out of the Legislature.

 

[Bill Sloman]

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk1tkt$obf3n$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Bill Sloman wrote:
"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bjvhhg$nqrk8$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Jim Thompson wrote:

snip

There is no point in an unenforced law. Some legislation was passed
here (UK) that made obtaining guns harder - even for government
bodies that
required them. What was the point in that? The people with guns
have them
illegally anyway - they clearly have no regard for the law so the
net result
was that it is now harder to deal with the armed criminals.
Brilliant.

A depressing example of non-quantitative thinking.

So I presume you have all the numbers to hand and can prove what YOU are
saying?

Those few people who manage to beat the legislation to get guns and
hold them illegally are a problem, but the legislation does make it
more difficult, and thus there are fewer of them.

Speculative.

The police thus have less occasion to send out squads of marksmen, and
need fewer guns themselves.

Speculation carried forward.



Seems to be a successful piece of legislation to me. It isn't
absolutely successful - it doesn't totally stop bad people from
getting guns if they tried hard enough - but absolutely successful
pieces of legislation are rare outside of cloud-cuckoo-land.

How many other laws are you going to campaign against, on the basis
that they don't totally stop the undesired behaviour condemned?
Anti-speeding, anti-fraud, anti-burglary, anti-corruption,
anti-assault, anti-murder - if you are going to be consistent, you
must want to throw out all of them, becasue all these crimes persist
despite vigorously enforced laws against them.

Perhaps you might care to restate your argument in terms that might
convince somebody with a functional critical faculty?


You could have started by proving your side of the argument.

I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious
nonsense, and all I was effectively pointing out was that the
legislation could be seen to be successful even if a few unusually
persistent criminals still managed to get their hands on guns.

Mine was based on fact,

I wasn't arguing with your fact, but with the conclusion you drew from
it.

although I do not have a source for the figures to hand. You're
argument is based on what?

Logic. And I do read the Guardian Weekly every week, and watch the
BBC1 news from time to time. Neither features U.S. levels of gun
violence.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

"Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bk1tnn$o6seb$1@ID-191149.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Roger Hamlett wrote:

<snipped fine exhibition of logical fallacies>

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Sloman's cage.

Yep. I do dislike pseudo-logical qualitative arguments, and gun nuts
seem to have a particular enthusiasm for this form of delusive
propaganda.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@golana-will-get-you.com> wrote in message news:<msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com>...

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was
allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place, before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that seems to
have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Since the argument was about UK guns laws, or rather about when you
can conclude that a gun control law isn't working, knowledge of U.S.
gun laws is irrelelvant

Except for those few states dominated by socialists,

You apply the term "socialist" to a much wider range of political
opinion than do most commentators - you don't seem to understand what
the word means, any more than you understand what the word "cretin"
means.

like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

With a bunch of disciplined troops, it isn't that difficult. The armed
mob tends to end up dead if they get obstreperous. The NRA has this
bizarre tendency to claim that an armed mob that has never trained
together can be identified with the US constitution's "well regulated
militia", but intelligent adults should know better.

In Arizona you can carry a gun on your person if it's contained in a
visible holster.

In Arizona you can carry a concealed weapon if you pass an examination
for such a permit.

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

I think I'll stay home. I'd have got a five times greater chance of
being murdered in the U.S. than I have in the Netherlands (presumably
people getting in premptive strikes on potential gun-carriers using
knives and clubs), and a ten times greater chance of being murdered
with a gun.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Ben Pope]

Bill Sloman wrote:

I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious

You said that, not I.

Logic. And I do read the Guardian Weekly every week, and watch the
BBC1 news from time to time. Neither features U.S. levels of gun
violence.

I wouldn't expect them too. Not that U.S. levels of gun violence is
relevent to the UK or anything I've said in this branch of the thread.

Ben
--
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:01:24 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
I did. Your argument was based on the proposition that if any criminal
can get guns, the legisation isn't working, which is an obvious

You said that, not I.

Logic. And I do read the Guardian Weekly every week, and watch the
BBC1 news from time to time. Neither features U.S. levels of gun
violence.

I wouldn't expect them too. Not that U.S. levels of gun violence is
relevent to the UK or anything I've said in this branch of the thread.

Ben

We had a perfectly normal night around here... our typical
4/weekend-night gunshot deaths.

Plus the east valley cops having been having a good time of it
themselves... killing (by shooting) one person per week because they
were brandishing knives... fits right in with their policy of
shooting-in-the-back a young woman who was trying to pass a forged
prescription for back-pain medication... tried to drive off when the
cops arrived. Bang-bang, "Stop or I'll shoot" :-(

I think we're headed toward some citizen review board legislation.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <Bo49b.3832$v%5.1794@fed1read02>, rphenry@home.com
says...

"Keith R. Williams" <krw@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ce87de9e334eca98a683@enews.newsguy.com...
In article <msv8mv4ou6vu9ablmfgq780domdq5tlcdg@4ax.com>, Jim-
T@golana-will-get-you.com says...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:24:54 +0100, "Ben Pope" <spam@hotmail.com
wrote:

Roger Hamlett wrote:
The 'balance', was whether this law, would discourage a single
criminal from holding arms. It is perhaps worth realising that it was
allready illegal to have a firearm 'out' in a public place, before
this law was introduced. Criminals generally didn't get their arms
from legitimate sources, but were happy to get them 'illegally' -
they are after all 'criminals'. The law cost the state (the
taxpayer), enough money to pay for two major new hospitals, and by
the police figures, has not reduced armed crime at all. The specific
question, is whether it can/will prevent another 'Dunblaine'. Though
(thankfully), there has not yet been a repeat of this horror, these
events are rare enough, that it'll be twenty years or more, before a
conclusion on this can be reached. However there have been enough
'near misses', with people using even worse weapons (full auto
rifles, that have been banned even longer - since Hungerford), that
there is little doubt that it has not had the effect of making
weapons harder to get for the criminal...

Thanks for a more detailed description... Mine was a sidenote that
seems to
have rattled Bill Slomans cage.

Ben

I think most foreigners lurking here have not a clue about gun laws in
the USA.

Except for those few states dominated by socialists, like New York,
Massa2shits, and Connecticut, it is *legal* to own a gun... it just
has to be registered due to the crazy Brady Bill, designed primarily
to ease the round up of guns when the citizens try to overthrow the
government.

The crazy Brady Bill does *not* require registration. It only
requires a background check at the time of purchase, if the.
purchase is from a dealer who has a Federal Firearms License. It
is not in any way a "permit", nor is it required for private
sales. I legally own several handguns and can legally carry
concealed at any time (with a few restrictions). No license is
required, no registration, nothing. As you say, it's up to the
individual states.

BTW, Vermont is on the list of "those few states dominated by
socialists" (Evidence: Howie Dean, Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy, and
Jumpin' Jism Jim Jeffords). The folks are also rather adamant
about their firearms, so the socialists have let the locals play,
at least for now.

But how do you take guns away from an armed mob ?

With a bigger armed mob with tin stars? ;-)

In Arizona you can carry a gun on your person if it's contained in a
visible holster.

Can do that, or concealed. I tend to carry them in a duffel bag
in their boxes when I go to the range.

In Arizona you can carry a concealed weapon if you pass an examination
for such a permit.

Permit? Why? Don't tell me you live in one of them commie
states, Jim. ;-)

All socialists are invited to Arizona for a demonstration ;-)

I guess we're just too nice here in Vermont. The socialists
snuck in while the locals were hibernating.

I grew up in Vermont in the Republican days (Eben: Say, Zeb, the results
show 2 Democrat votes this year in the town election. Zeb: That sumbitch
musta voted twice!).

We knew the socialists were coming in when the state deemed the school
lunchrooms unsanitary

Site!

and made the town of my father's birth stop dumping
their sewage in the trout stream.

They still do. Your point? Despite the commies controlling the
state now, there are *still* people shitting in their own
drinking water. Guess where? The camps on the lake are a prime
example. Who owns them? Please! The commies (a.k.a.
progressives) have done *nothing* to improve life, only ruin the
beautiful state. I do believe that's their plan.

Old-timers believe the decline started in
1927, when a big flood wiped out most of the roads in the state and there
was suddenly a reason for state-wide tax-and-spend programs.

I've only been here a decade, but the old-farts have far more
common sense than the commies from 'Jersey and Wall Street. At
least the old farts of '27 had enough gumption to tell the feds
to butt out. Tax-n-spend wasn't a '27 thing.

Then in the
60's the Supreme Court's one-man-one-vote rule knocked most of the
small-town reps out of the Legislature.

....and made things even worse. ...and more attractive to the NY
and NJ pinks.

I'll be outta here the minute I retire. I couldn't possibly
afford the taxes the jersey-pinkos have foisted on the state.
There is good reason the local farmers are going bust.

--
Keith